8 RESPONSES

I find it a little sad that they couldn’t preserve the front of them at all. I get that they are clearly in horrible shape, but building faux historic houses that don’t look anything like the ruined but authentic historic houses the new homes are replacing doesn’t help. Especially since this effectively replaces one type of vernacular architecture with a totally different type.

Maybe a camelback house, or something that echoes or even keeps the original façade (cottage/bungalow) while adding the space that these houses were obviously lacking?

I have to agree that tearing down these homes and building homes that are new age and “in” but don’t contain the original beauty of the homes that where presently there is a sad move on the case of the city and the contractors.

Neither house was able to be renovated due to foundation issues. However, Project Homes owns the properties and they always do whatever possible to either restore the home or mimic its architecture as closely as possible.

@ Cheryl – good to hear. Like I said originally I could see how it might not have been practical to keep them as is for multiple reasons. I think what confused me is that they are using the same “new homes” sign on all of their projects without showing the specific design for each lot, of that makes sense

It is confusing and both Project Homes and Better Housing Coalition do that so you are never quite sure what they are building until it is close to completion. I guess it saves them money to use the same signs and you call the listing agent if you are interested in buying.